Article 374

Article 374 of the Constitution of India serves as a transitional provision ensuring the smooth transfer of judicial authority from the pre-independence British system to the post-independence constitutional framework. It bridges the Federal Court and the Privy Council system with the newly established Supreme Court of India, maintaining continuity in the judicial process during the critical period of constitutional transition.

Background and Context

Before the adoption of the Constitution of India on 26 January 1950, the country was governed under the Government of India Act, 1935. Under this Act, the Federal Court of India was established in 1937 as the highest judicial authority within British India. However, the Privy Council in London, officially known as His Majesty in Council, functioned as the ultimate appellate body for colonial India.
The enactment of the Constitution introduced a new judicial hierarchy with the Supreme Court of India as the apex court. Article 374 was incorporated to ensure that the transition from the colonial judicial framework to the independent Indian judiciary occurred seamlessly, without disrupting pending cases or the service conditions of existing judges.

Judges of the Federal Court

Article 374(1) stipulated that all judges serving in the Federal Court before the commencement of the Constitution would automatically become judges of the newly established Supreme Court of India. This provision ensured administrative continuity and preserved judicial expertise.
The judges retained their previous salaries, allowances, leave entitlements, and pension rights, as specified under Article 125 of the Constitution. This continuity maintained judicial independence and safeguarded the rights of serving judges during the institutional transformation.

Transfer of Pending Proceedings

At the time of the Constitution’s commencement, several civil, criminal, and constitutional cases were pending before the Federal Court. Under Article 374(2), these proceedings were automatically transferred to the Supreme Court of India.
The Supreme Court was vested with full authority to hear, determine, and dispose of such cases as if they had originally been instituted before it. Furthermore, any judgments, decrees, or orders delivered by the Federal Court prior to the commencement of the Constitution retained full legal validity and effect, as if they had been made by the Supreme Court itself.
This clause ensured that the judicial process was not interrupted by the constitutional change and that litigants’ rights remained protected under the new legal order.

Jurisdiction of His Majesty in Council

Before independence, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council acted as the highest appellate tribunal for India and other British dominions. Its authority was derived from the Royal Prerogative and extended to appeals and petitions from Indian High Courts and the Federal Court.
Article 374(3) clarified that the coming into force of the Constitution did not invalidate the jurisdiction of His Majesty in Council concerning cases that were already pending before it. Any appeals, petitions, or matters awaiting decision before His Majesty in Council continued to be valid, and any orders or judgments issued thereafter were deemed to be those of the Supreme Court of India.
This ensured that the constitutional transition did not affect the finality or enforceability of decisions rendered under the old regime.

Cessation of Privy Council Jurisdiction

From 26 January 1950, the jurisdiction of the Privy Council over Indian cases ceased entirely. Article 374(4) provided that any appeals or proceedings pending before the Privy Council concerning the former Indian States (included in Part B of the First Schedule) were transferred to the Supreme Court of India.
This provision marked the complete severance of judicial dependence on the British Crown and the establishment of the Supreme Court as the sole and final appellate authority within the Republic of India.

Legislative Powers of Parliament

Article 374(5) empowered Parliament to make laws for carrying out the transition of judicial authority and to facilitate the smooth functioning of the Supreme Court in place of the Federal Court and Privy Council.
This clause provided flexibility to the legislature to address any procedural or administrative matters arising out of the change in the judicial system. It reflected the framers’ foresight in anticipating the complexities of institutional restructuring during the nation’s formative years.

Judicial Interpretation and Case Law

Several Supreme Court judgments have reaffirmed the constitutional validity and continuity envisaged under Article 374. The Court has consistently upheld that the transfer of cases from the Federal Court and Privy Council to the Supreme Court was legally sound and constitutionally mandated.
In early post-Constitution cases, such as Janardhan Reddy v. State of Hyderabad (1951), the Supreme Court acknowledged its inherited jurisdiction over pre-Constitution matters, establishing a precedent for judicial continuity. These rulings reinforced the Supreme Court’s authority as the successor to all pre-existing appellate jurisdictions in India.

Key Terms

  • Federal Court: The highest judicial body in British India established under the Government of India Act, 1935.
  • Supreme Court: The apex judicial authority established by the Constitution of India in 1950.
  • His Majesty in Council: The British sovereign acting through the Privy Council as the final court of appeal for colonial territories.
  • Privy Council: The advisory body to the British Crown, functioning as the highest appellate tribunal for India prior to independence.

Associated Constitutional Provisions

  • Article 125: Governs the salaries, allowances, and conditions of service for judges of the Supreme Court.
  • Article 141: Declares that the law laid down by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India.
  • Article 395: Formally repealed the Government of India Act, 1935, consolidating the authority of the new Constitution.
Originally written on May 3, 2018 and last modified on October 13, 2025.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *